[db-wg] New NWI for geofeed?
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] New NWI for geofeed?
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] New NWI for geofeed?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Massimo Candela
massimo at us.ntt.net
Tue May 4 23:12:27 CEST 2021
Hi Edward, Perfect! Thanks On 04/05/2021 22:35, Edward Shryane via db-wg wrote: > Hello Denis, Colleagues, > > Following is the impact analysis for the implementation of the "geofeed:" attribute in the RIPE database, based on the problem statement below and the draft RFC: > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ymbk-opsawg-finding-geofeeds > > I will ask our Legal team to conduct a full impact analysis of the implementation plan. > > Please reply with corrections or suggestions. > > Regards > Ed Shryane > RIPE NCC > > > > Impact Analysis for Implementing the "geofeed:" Attribute > ============================================================ > > > "geoloc:" Attribute > ---------------------- > Implementing the "geofeed:" attribute does not affect the "geoloc:" attribute. No decision has been taken on the future of the "geoloc:" attribute, a review can be done at a later date. > > "remarks:" Attribute > ----------------------- > Existing "remarks:" attributes in INETNUM or INET6NUM object types containing a "geofeed: url" value will not be automatically converted to a "geofeed:" attribute. > > The implementation will validate that an INETNUM or INET6NUM object may contain at most a single geofeed reference, either a "remarks:" attribute *or* a "geofeed:" attribute. More than one will result in an error on update. > > Any "remarks:" attributes in other object types will not be validated for geofeed references. > > "geofeed:" Attribute > ----------------------- > The "geofeed:" attribute will be added to the INETNUM and INET6NUM object types. It will be an optional, singly occurring attribute. > > The attribute value must consist only of a well-formed URL. Any other content in the attribute value will result in a syntax error. > > "geofeed:" URL > ----------------- > The URL in the "geofeed:" attribute will be validated that it is well-formed (i.e. syntactically correct). > > The URL must use the ASCII character set only (in the RIPE database, non-Latin-1 characters will be substituted with a '?' character). > > Non-ASCII characters in the URL host name must be converted to ASCII using Punycode in advance (before updating the RIPE database). > > Non-ASCII characters in the URL path must be converted using Percent-encoding in advance. > > Only the HTTPS protocol is supported in the URL, otherwise an error is returned. > > The reachability of the URL will not be checked. The content of the URL will not be validated. > > Database dump and Split files > ---------------------------------- > The "geofeed:" attribute will be included in the nightly database dump and split files. > > NRTM > -------- > The "geofeed:" attribute will be included in INETNUM and INET6NUM objects in the NRTM stream. > > Whois Queries > ----------------- > The "geofeed:" attribute will appear by default in (filtered) INETNUM and INET6NUM objects in Whois query responses, no additional query flag will be needed. > > RDAP > ------------- > The "geofeed:" attribute will not appear in RDAP responses. A separate RDAP profile will be needed to extend the response format to include geofeed. This can be implemented at a later date. > > Documentation > --------------- > The RIPE database documentation will be updated, including the inet(6)num object templates and attribute description (with a reference to the IETF draft document). > > Other RIRs > ------------- > There is currently no coordinated plan to implement "geofeed:" across regions. Other RIRs may implement "geofeed:" at a later date. > > Legal Review > --------------- > An initial review by the RIPE NCC Legal team found that geofeed data may qualify as personal data, and before introducing the "geofeed:" attribute a full impact analysis of its implementation would have to be conducted by the RIPE NCC. > > > ----- > > > >> On 12 Apr 2021, at 17:59, denis walker via db-wg <db-wg at ripe.net> wrote: >> >> Colleagues >> >> ** corrected version getting the attribute names right ** >> >> The chairs agree that there is a consensus to set up an NWI to create >> the "geofeed:" attribute in the RIPE Database. We therefore ask the >> RIPE NCC to set up "NWI-13 Create a "geofeed:" attribute in the RIPE >> Database" Using the 'Problem statement' below. After the RIPE NCC >> completes it's impact analysis we can finalise the 'Solution >> definition'. The RIPE NCC can address any of the questions raised in >> this discussion that they feel are relevant to the basic creation of >> this attribute. >> >> cheers >> denis >> co-chair DB-WG >> >> >> Problem statement >> >> Associating an approximate physical location with an IP address has >> proven to be a challenge to solve within the current constraints of >> the RIPE Database. Over the years the community has chosen to consider >> addresses in the RIPE Database to relate to entities in the assignment >> process itself, not the subsequent actual use of IP addresses after >> assignment. >> >> The working group is asked to consider whether the RIPE Database can >> be used as a springboard for parties wishing to correlate geographical >> information with IP addresses by allowing structured references in the >> RIPE Database towards information outside the RIPE Database which >> potentially helps answer Geo IP Location queries >> >> The IETF is currently discussing an update to RPSL to add a new >> attribute "geofeed: url". The url will reference a csv file containing >> location data. Some users have already started to make use of this >> feature via the "remarks: geofeed: url". It is never a good idea to >> try to overload structured data into the free format "remarks:" >> attribute. This has been done in the past, for example with abuse >> contact details before we introduced the "abuse-c:" attribute. There >> is no way to regulate what database users put into "remarks:" >> attributes. So even if the new "geofeed:" attribute is not agreed, the >> url data will still be included in the RIPE Database. >> >> Currently there are 24,408 INETNUM and 516,354 INET6NUM objects >> containing a "geoloc" attribute in the database. These have 7,731 >> distinct values in the INETNUMs and 1,045 distinct values in the >> INET6NUMs. There are about 150 objects in the RIPE Database with a >> "remarks: geoloc url" attribute. >> >> On Mon, 12 Apr 2021 at 17:56, denis walker <ripedenis at gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Colleagues >>> >>> The chairs agree that there is a consensus to set up an NWI to create >>> the "geoloc:" attribute in the RIPE Database. We therefore ask the >>> RIPE NCC to set up "NWI-13 Create a "geoloc:" attribute in the RIPE >>> Database" Using the 'Problem statement' below. After the RIPE NCC >>> completes it's impact analysis we can finalise the 'Solution >>> definition'. The RIPE NCC can address any of the questions raised in >>> this discussion that they feel are relevant to the basic creation of >>> this attribute. >>> >>> cheers >>> denis >>> co-chair DB-WG >>> >>> >>> Problem statement >>> >>> Associating an approximate physical location with an IP address has >>> proven to be a challenge to solve within the current constraints of >>> the RIPE Database. Over the years the community has chosen to consider >>> addresses in the RIPE Database to relate to entities in the assignment >>> process itself, not the subsequent actual use of IP addresses after >>> assignment. >>> >>> The working group is asked to consider whether the RIPE Database can >>> be used as a springboard for parties wishing to correlate geographical >>> information with IP addresses by allowing structured references in the >>> RIPE Database towards information outside the RIPE Database which >>> potentially helps answer Geo IP Location queries >>> >>> The IETF is currently discussing an update to RPSL to add a new >>> attribute "geofeed: url". The url will reference a csv file containing >>> location data. Some users have already started to make use of this >>> feature via the "remarks: geofeed: url". It is never a good idea to >>> try to overload structured data into the free format "remarks:" >>> attribute. This has been done in the past, for example with abuse >>> contact details before we introduced the "abuse-c:" attribute. There >>> is no way to regulate what database users put into "remarks:" >>> attributes. So even if the new "geofeed:" attribute is not agreed, the >>> url data will still be included in the RIPE Database. >>> >>> Currently there are 24,408 INETNUM and 516,354 INET6NUM objects >>> containing a "geoloc:" attribute in the database. These have 7,731 >>> distinct values in the INETNUMs and 1,045 distinct values in the >>> INET6NUMs. There are about 150 objects in the RIPE Database with a >>> "remarks: geoloc url" attribute. >>> >>> On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 at 04:29, denis walker <ripedenis at gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> HI Massimo >>>> >>>> I just checked the numbers Ed gave me and I misread the message. These >>>> are the numbers of objects with a "geoloc:" attribute not geofeed :( >>>> >>>> cheers >>>> denis >>>> co-chair DB-WG >>>> >>>> On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 at 02:56, Massimo Candela <massimo at us.ntt.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Denis, >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 07/04/2021 02:02, denis walker wrote: >>>>>> Your data does not match the data I got from the RIPE NCC... >>>>>> >>>>>> From the RIPE NCC: >>>>>> >>>>>> Currently there are 24,408 INETNUM and 516,354 INET6NUM objects >>>>>> containing a "remarks: geofeed: url" attribute in the database. These >>>>>> have 7,731 distinct values in the INETNUMs and 1,045 distinct values >>>>>> in the INET6NUMs. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I cannot reproduce what you did. >>>>> Even if I just "grep -i geofeed" in ripe.db.inetnum.gz from the ripe ncc >>>>> ftp [1], I obtain only 132 items. And 39 in ripe.db.inet6num.gz. The >>>>> same if I use the complete dump [2]. >>>>> >>>>> Is the data in the FTP wrong? Am I doing something wrong? >>>>> >>>>> Ciao, >>>>> Massimo >>>>> >>>>> [1] https://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/dbase/split/ >>>>> [2] https://ftp.ripe.net/ripe/dbase/ripe.db.gz >> > >
- Previous message (by thread): [db-wg] New NWI for geofeed?
- Next message (by thread): [db-wg] New NWI for geofeed?
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ db-wg Archives ]